CC Minutes - 05/24/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ said that the council should remove the penalties related to the property owner and reinforce the penalties for perpetrators, with the goal of not abating graffiti but of avoiding it altogether. Ms. Taylor said that people do not have to repair their car if it was vandalized, and there was no penalty if they do not. She pointed out that some businesses were repeatedly tagged, and she did not think abating graffiti was as simple as vegetation removal. Painting requires special clothing, equipment, and time, and the time abatement required could be difficult for a small business owner to handle. Mr. Lee said he would like to get public input on the ordinance as currently drafted. Mr. Rayor asked if Corvallis had experienced a reduction in graffiti because of the wall. He said that he was disturbed by the issue of etched windows, as those repairs were quite costly and he believed property owners should be offered alternatives. Mr. Rayor asked that Public Works make available to property owners information about graffiti-resistant paints. Mr. Lankston said that the City currently did so and would continue to do so in the future. Mr. Rayor said that the ordinance should reinforce what was currently in place and not be another penalty for owning property. Mr. Johnson said that the public policy before the council was who paid for graffiti abatement. Was it the City's proper role to pay for graffiti abatement, or should the owner do it? He asked if those councilors reluctant to assess property owners for abatement would support the ordinance if the City tracked abatement and it became the owner's responsibility after the first two abatements on the same property within a set period of time. Ms. Taylor said that would make sense if the owner could stop the graffiti. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the property owner controlled the property. Mr. Torrey encouraged the council to forward the ordinance to the public for a hearing. He believed that most people would oppose being charged, but if the City wanted to get the eyes of the community on the perpetrators of graffiti, one of the ways to do that was to make it something people needed to pay attention to. He suggested that now people do not pay attention because they do not have to. Mr. Torrey said that if the City continued to fund abatement at the cost of $50,000, there were fewer dollars for other important General Fund services. Mr. Meisner agreed that the policy question facing the council was who pays, and the money involved was real. He suggested that council frame the question to the public by asking if abatement should occur as called for in the ordinance, or if the City should expend $50,000 out of the General Fund that would otherwise be available for City services. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Torrey that there was value to making property owners aware of their responsibilities, but suggested that the issue was the time of day in which graffiti incidents occurred, which was largely at night when no one was around. He believed Mr. Johnson's suggestion that the City track abatements and abate the first two incidents on a single property at no charge was worthy of follow-up. He said that if the City's primary motivation was financial savings, there should be some way to separate the occasional program users from the habitual program abusers. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his opposition to the ordinance in its current form. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.